ORDER Granting 227 Plaintiff Lindsay McClure's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time… — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 228)

Summary

An Order Granting Plaintiff Lindsay McClure's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Papers in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, filed 03/04/24 as Document 228 and dated March 4, 2024. It recounts that on February 14, 2024 McClure moved ex parte to compel non-party TTEC Government Solutions, LLC to comply with a subpoena, and that TTEC responded on February 23, 2024. Because meet-and-confer talks may resolve the dispute and TTEC does not oppose, the court finds good cause and moves the reply deadline from March 1, 2024 to March 11, 2024, and orders McClure to serve TTEC with the order.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA CALIFORNIA 
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS LITIGATION 
 
Case No.:  21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
 
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LINDSAY 
MCCLURE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 
PAPERS [ECF NO. 227] 
 
On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff Lindsay McClure (“Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte 
Motion seeking an order compelling non-party TTEC Government Solutions, LLC 
(“TTEC”) to comply with a subpoena.  (ECF No. 220.)  The following day, the Court issued 
a briefing schedule for the motion.  (ECF No. 221.)  TTEC timely filed its Response on 
February 23, 2024.  (ECF No. 222.)  Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s 
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Papers (“Unopposed Motion”).  
(See ECF No. 227.)  Plaintiff explains that briefing has led to meet and confer discussions 
between counsel, which “seem likely to lead to at least a partial, and perhaps a 
complete, resolution of the present discovery dispute.”  (Id. at 2.)  Accordingly, Plaintiff 
requests that the current deadline to file a Reply be continued from March 1, 2024, to 
March 11, 2024.  (Id.)  TTEC does not oppose this request.  (Id.) 
/ / / 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 228     Filed 03/04/24     PageID.2424     Page 1
of 2

 
2 
21md2992-LAB (MSB) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the Unopposed Motion.  The deadline for 
Plaintiff to file a Reply is CONTINUED from March 1, 2024, to March 11, 2024.  Plaintiff 
is ORDERED to serve TTEC with a copy of this Order.   
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated:  March 4, 2024 
 
 
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 228     Filed 03/04/24     PageID.2425     Page 2
of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.228.0.pdf

Size

101,065 bytes

SHA-256

2306264a2651cfc958042eb6bf2c2e4e546e6a0b9db452883c78479d57b73af7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.228.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)